Commons Sitting of 26 March 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—The Marquess of Hartington, for Lancaster County (Northern Division).
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—considered in Committee.
Report—on Public Petitions, Thirteenth Report.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Stock Certificates to Bearer [Bill 76].
Second Reading—Office of Secretary at War Abolition [Bill 72]; Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) [Bill 74]; Local Government Act (1858) Amendment [Bill 69].
Committee—Telegraphs [Bill 57]; Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) [Bill 1], Debate (March 4) returned—Bill considered, r. p.
Report—Telegraphs [Bill 75].
Third Reading—Corrupt Practices at Elections [Bill 68]; and passed.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POSTAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is intended to abandon the principle of an uniform rate of Postage to British Possessions Abroad, by doubling the charge upon letters to the British West India Colonies, while reducing that upon letters conveyed by the same line of packets to Foreign countries, even at a greater distance; and, if so, for what reason?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the principle of uniformity of postage had already been abandoned in the case of the postage of letters to Hong Kong and Singapore, which had been raised two years ago from 6d. to 1s. The present step had been taken because it was found that the smaller sum was insufficient to pay the expenses incurred, and because it was believed that the increase would not materially interfere with the correspondence between those countries. At the same time, letters sent by private ship were charged at the reduced rate of 3d. and 4d.; so that there
  1930
  were two modes—one for those to whom time, and the other for those to whom economy was an object. Letters for Mexico and Cuba, which were formerly charged 1s. 6d. and 2s. 6d, were now reduced to 1s., because the former rates were undoubtedly too high, and because it was an advantage to assimilate them with the rates to our own colonies.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask whether it was proposed that instead of granting a subsidy to the West India Mails, the Steam Packet Company were to receive any proportion of the postage on the letters as compensation for conveying them? He wished further to know whether the contract with that Company had come to an end?
  MR. PEELsaid, the contract would continue until next year, and a subsidy would still be paid for the conveyance of the mails. Tenders had been advertised for, and they were now under consideration.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to know whether the Governments of Cuba or Mexico were to pay any portion of the subsidy for the conveyance of their mails.
  MR. PEELreplied in the negative.

FEDERAL RECRUITING IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY THYNNEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement that the Federal Government of America are recruiting largely in Ireland; whether that statement is true; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to prevent such recruiting?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that no reports had recently been received respecting the enlistment of recruits in Ireland for the Federal army. Indeed, although there had been rumours on the subject, there had been at no time any definite statements.

RAMSGATE HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD DER1NGsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, When the Accounts for Ramsgate Harbour for the year 1862 will be presented to Parliament; and whether any, and if any what steps have been taken by the Government with a view to the revision of the Tariff of Dues now levied for Ramsgate Harbour.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the accounts for 1862 were ready, and would be almost immediately laid on the table. No attempt had been made to revise the tariff, as there had not yet been sufficient experience with regard to its working.

POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS IN IRELAND.—QUESTIONS.
MR. WHALLKYsaid, he regretted to find that a Question, of which he had given notice, was so worded as to give offence to certain persons. He wished to omit any words from that Question which were calculated to give offence. [Mr. SCULLY: Hear, hear!] He would therefore omit the word "disloyal" from his Question, and simply ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received any information on the subject of the "demonstrations at Dublin, Cork, and other places on the 10th instant;" and whether it is true that "at many of which, as Kilrush and Bellina, an effigy of the Prince of Wales was publicly burned; and whether any investigation is intended as to the nature and extent of the organization manifest in these proceedings "?
MR. SCULLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. In consequence of my notice to the hon. Member for Peterborough he has altered the wording of his Question. Since you, Sir, have occupied the chair of the House, you have laid down a rule that no discussion shall arise upon the putting or answering of a Question, and that no Question shall be so framed as to convey an offensive assertion which cannot be contradicted in this House. Now, the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough contains no less than five or six offensive assertions which there are no means in this House of contradicting. The Question, however, has been somewhat modified from the notice on the paper, no doubt in consequence of an arrangement come to between the hon. Member for Peterborough and his excellent Friend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. [Cries of Order, order!] I am perfectly in order. I have myself risen to order, and having risen to order, I am not to be confined to mere limits. Here, upon the face of this paper, has been put forward by the hon. Member a statement most offensive to the Irish people. The hon. Member has, however, withdrawn the word "disloyal," which he had intended to fling broadcast against the Irish people. But although
1932
he has withdrawn that expression before he ventured to put his Question publicly, it remains upon the books of the House in its original and insulting form. The hon. Member has no right to use the notice paper as a means of advertising his unfounded assertions. He speaks of "Bellina" as a place in Ireland. I suppose he was thinking of Bellona. But whether he means Bellina or Bellona, or some other Roman name, I have never heard of any such place in Ireland. So much for the hon. Member's knowledge of that country. Then it is alleged that the Prince of Wales has been burnt in effigy, but that is a circumstance of which I was totally unaware until I read it on the paper of the House. Nor am I aware of anything like an organization of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member. I might as well talk of an organization amongst the starving people of Staleybridgo as manifesting a disloyal spirit. I now ask you, Sir, whether such language should be allowed, and I shall, of course, bow to your decision.
MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman point out what he considers to be out of order in the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough?
MR. SCULLY: I do not think the paper of the House ought to be made use of for the purpose of charging the inhabitants of certain towns in Ireland with disloyal manifestations, and with the burning of the effigy of the Prince of Wales, particularly when there is no truth whatever in the assertion.
MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that in putting a Question no argument or opinion is to be offered and no new fact stated, except as far as they may be necessary to explain such Question. The good sense of that regulation must be evident to the House. No matter ought to be propounded as a Question in a form to raise discussion. In the present instance it is quite allowable for the hon. Member to state the facts which are necessary to elucidate his Question. Whether or not the assertions he has made are well founded it is quite beyond my province to determine. It would, of course, be improper, and out of order, for a Member to state as a fact anything which he cannot substantiate. If it is capable of being established as a fact that the effigy of the Prince of Wales has been publicly burnt, then, perhaps, no great difference of opinion would arise, as to the appropriateness of the epithet

1933
disloyal applied to such a transaction, The rule of the House is, as I have stated, that no matter of opinion or argument can be introduced in putting a Question.
MR. SCULLY: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland rises to answer the Question, I have a question to put to him. [Cries of Order, order!] I am not out of order. I have written my Question out.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork was out of order in interrupting the right hon. Baronet when about to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I wish first of all to say, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully), that in the Question which has been put there has been no concurrence between the hon. Member for Peterborough and myself. I never have done, and never will do, such a thing. The hon. Member certainly asked me the other night whether he could put a Question to me with reference to the recent proceedings in Ireland, I said that any hon. Member was at liberty to address to me any inquiry he chose, and that I was bound to answer to the best of my ability. I deny, however, that there was any arrangement whatever between the hon. Member and myself on the subject. As to the Question itself, it is a matter of public notoriety that disturbances occurred in Ireland about the 10th inst. But I am quite sure that no one can reasonably affirm that these demonstrations on the part of a few seditious persons, in two or three localities, are of any weight whatever as faithfully representing the public opinion of Ireland. There have been these demonstrations, but they were extremely partial, and I maintain it would be most unfair to allow them to outweigh the general feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Throne which prevails among the great bulk of the Irish people. With regard to the Question put to me—and I am bound to answer it—as to the burning in effigy of the Prince of Wales, I read in the papers that such a thing did occur; but I do not think too much importance must be attached to that means of displaying feeling, and I will give the reason why.
MR. WHITESIDE: In what paper was it stated?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I understood that the effigy of the Prince of Wales was burnt in the towns of Kilrush and Ballina. Why, in 1861 I saw it publicly announced
1934
in the newspapers that I was myself to be officially burnt in effigy in a town in the west at Ireland. I had never been in that town, and could have given it no offence; but I visited the place on two or three occasions afterwards, and experienced no inconvenience whatever from the warmth of that demonstration. The truth is that the feeling in Ireland is sound at the core; and I am bound to say I believe that in London or anywhere else in England a handful of seditious persons, if organized, might easily break the peace, or any half-dozen or dozen evil-disposed schoolboys interfere with a proposed illumination. But in 1861 I myself witnessed the enthusiasm with which the Sovereign was received when she visited Ireland, and I am satisfied now, in spite of the supposition of the hon. Member, that if the Prince of Wales went, accompanied by his bride, to visit that country, in the course of his progress through the United Kingdom, he would there receive as warm a welcome as could be accorded to any member of the Royal family in any part of the Empire.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he would then put the Question of which he had just given notice. Previously to doing so, he wished to apologize both to the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Peterborough, for living imputed any concert between them as to the particular Question to be put and the answer to be given to it. He had made the imputation because he saw the right hon. Baronet rise after communicating with the hon. Member. The Question he wished to ask the Chief Secretary was, whether he regarded the so-called demonstrations in Dublin, Cork, and other places in Ireland, on the 10th inst, as indications of personal disloyalty towards Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales, or rather as manifestations of grave discontent in that part of the United Kingdom? He also wished to ask, whether any precautionary measures had been adopted by the authorities in those places to prevent the demonstrations; whether he thought the better classes in Dublin, Cork, and elsewhere, had taken any part in the organization of those demonstrations for the purposes imputed by the hon. Member for Peterborough; and, if so, in what manner? ["Order!"] Hon. Members, perhaps, thought his question too long. If they interfered any further with him, he was afraid he should be compelled to begin it again in order to preserve the whole thread of his inquiry. Well, he would ask

1935
further, whether the students of Trinity College, Dublin, had contributed in any way to the local riots of the 10th of March; whether there was such a place in Ireland as Bellina, so pointedly referred to by the hon. Gentleman; and, lastly, he desired to learn whether it was a fact known to the Government that the effigy of the Prince of Wales had been publicly burnt in Kinsale, Bellina, or Bellona, or any other places in Ireland?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: This Question is rather a long one, but I most distinctly deny that there was any collusion in respect to the Question put to me to-night by the hon. Member for Peterborough. As regards the students of Trinity College, Dublin, to whom part of the hon. Member for Cork's Question refers, 1 believe they did not participate in any riot on the 10th inst. Like other young men, they made some joyous demonstrations on, I think, the 9th; but I have heard no report, and I do not believe it at all likely, that they made any riot on the 10th. As relates to Cork, I have seen the statement in the newspapers, and I have also the authority of a written report from the Mayor of that city, that an organized band of persons disturbed the peace there. Indeed, it is a matter of public notoriety. Their numbers were, however, very limited; and no one believes that that demonstration of a few seditious persons in any way represented the public feeling of the people of Ireland.
MR. WHITESIDE: I wish to ask whether the Government have directed any investigation to be made into the conduct of any magistrate in any part of Ireland who may have failed to perform his duty, being at the time supplied with a military and police force to put down the rioters if rioters appeared? Again, has any deposition been sent to the Castle, stating the fact of this burning in effigy?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes, there was a report from a sub-inspector with reference to the alleged burning in effigy in Kilrush, and I have just seen a telegram stating that eight or ten persons have been summarily disposed of by being sent to prison.
MR. WHITE SIDE: The right hon. Baronet has not answered precisely the Question which I put to him. My Question was whether, systematic riots being said to have taken place, and the magistrates being provided with police and military, any inquiry has been ordered into the man-
1936
ner in which these magistrates performed their duty?
MR. SCULLY: And whether any inquiry has been ordered into the conduct of the Mayor of Cork?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I have not heard that there has been any neglect of duty on the part of any magistrate, the police, or the military.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. DODSONsaid, be rose to call attention to the charges for the diplomatic service and to make a Motion on the subject. The expenditure on the diplomatic service, as far as he could ascertain it, amounted altogether to £360,000, and about one-half of that sum was defrayed under Act of Parliament by a fixed annual charge on the Consolidated Fund. The other part of our diplomatic expenditure was provided for in the Estimates yearly voted by the House. The various items of which it was composed were scattered up and down the different volumes of Civil Service Estimates, some of them being avowedly for diplomatic expenses, while others were disguised and placed under headings where one would least expect to find them. With the fragmentary Estimates which were submitted to the House at different intervals, it was impossible for any hon. Member, when asked to go into Committee of Supply, to say what was the cost of the diplomatic service, how the money voted was expended, or what they got for it. And yet, if he could not answer these questions, how could he give an intelligent "Aye" or "No" in Committee. Even if the Estimates were produced in an intelligible form, they would still be of comparatively little use, because they provided for only one-half of the expenditure on the diplomatic service. He had endeavoured to ascertain how it was that they had got into that position. Before the year 1830 a portion of the diplomatic expenditure was defrayed from the Civil List, and the other part by the Votes of that House. In 1831 the Civil List was reformed. A Committee which sat upon the question felt the mischief of making the House of Commons vote one-half

  1937
  of the charges for a service, while the other half was withheld from its control, and accordingly recommended that the whole expense of that service should be thrown upon a single fluid — namely, the Consolidated Fund. At the same time. a few specified extra expenses for subsidiary matters, were put in the Estimates. These extras were gradually increased by salaries, advances for houses, repairs, &c., until at length, in 1862, they had reverted to the original abuses of the year 1830. He also observed that several diplomatic officers figured in the Estimates as if they belonged to the consular service, while others, who ought to appear in the Estimates, were transferred to the Consolidated Fund. It seemed, indeed, as if the Foreign Secretary could withdraw from the control of the House all the appointments which might be thought questionable, submitting only those which could not fairly be impeached. Another point requiring explanation was, that diplomatic agents, who while on service were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, had been placed among the Consuls in receipt of pensions. The late Chargé d'Affaires at Venezuela, for example, had been pensioned out of the Votes of that House; while, on the other hand, there was a Consul pensioned out of the Consolidated Fund. In fact, the present system was full of anomalies and contradictions which were difficult to understand, and which placed that House in a very difficult position when they were called upon to vote the Estimates for the diplomatic or for the consular service. The Act of 1832 was intended to put a definite limit on the expenditure of the diplomatic service, whereas that limit had, in some cases, been openly transgressed and in others indirectly evaded. He asked the House, therefore, to affirm the Resolution which he had moved, and the effect of which would be to repeal the Act which charged the service upon the Consolidated Fund and to provide that Estimates for the whole of the diplomatic expenditure should be submitted to the House in a connected form, and the Votes for that service taken, as those for the army and navy were proposed, in one draught. The House often felt that its power on foreign questions was imperfect, and that it was only through the Crown that it could deal with foreign Governments. But the House had the legitimate remedy in its own hands, from the constitutional check it possessed in the power of the purse.
  1938
  If the whole of the Estimates for the diplomatic service were annually voted, the House would strengthen its hold on that branch of the public service, tighten its rein over the Foreign Office, and exercise a more direct influence on questions of foreign policy. The diplomatic body would feel themselves to be more the servants of the public and less of the Foreign Office, while the Foreign Office itself would become more sensitive, and would more quickly respond to the wishes of the House. Their foreign policy being more under the control of the House would acquire a more national character, and the diplomatic body, deriving their power immediately from the support they obtained in that House, would gain in popularity at home and acquire additional weight and influence abroad.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, all sums required to defray the expenses of the Diplomatic Service ought to be annually voted by Parliament, and that Estimates of all such sums ought to be submitted in a form that will admit of their effectual supervision and control by this House,"
  —instead thereof.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that he must admit that much of what his hon. Friend had said was true. No doubt, the practice with regard to the voting of the expenses of the diplomatic service was different from that which prevailed in reference to other departments of the public service. But the system had hitherto worked well. His hon. Friend had expressed the same opinions last, year, and he (Mr. Layard) then ventured to differ from him. He was prepared to oppose the Motion on two grounds:—First, he thought what his hon. Friend proposed would be objectionable on the score of economy; and secondly, on the score of the efficiency of the public service. What was the real state of the case? In 1825 no less a sum than £300,000 a year was assigned to the diplomatic service. In 1830 it was reduced to £230,000, but at that time the salaries of attachés were not, he believed, included in the Vote for the diplomatic service. After mature consideration, in 1832, it was proposed that a gross sum of £180,000 should be placed on the Civil List for the annual expense of the diplomatic service. That sum was to include not only the charges for the foreign missions, but also the retiring pensions to which Ministers

  1939
  and others in the diplomatic service were entitled. His hon. Friend had mixed up several things which were distinct. The nominal sum was only £180,000; but going through the different classes of Estimates his hon. Friend calculated the gross annual expenditure at not less than £360,000. But that embraced various parts of the public foreign service included in Classes 5 and 6 of the Estimates. There was a distinction between the consular and diplomatic service to which his hon. Friend had not adverted. The sum of £180,000 was made to meet the expense of the foreign missions alone and pensions. The only real exceptions were the diplomatic establishments in China and Japan, which had sprung up since the arrangement of 1832 was made, and for which separate Votes were taken. His hon. Friend had stated that in Class 6, among the superannuation grants, were included the pensions of diplomatic officers. That was not the case. Then his hon. Friend had referred to the cases of the Chargé d'Affaires at Venezuela, and other diplomatic agents in America. In the first place, some of the instances to which his hon. Friend had alluded probably referred to a period prior to the new arrangements made with regard to our missions in South America, where the consuls general had received diplomatic appointments: their salaries were now paid from the diplomatic list. It sometimes happened that when a consul general and diplomatic agent was absent on leave, the Consul of the place was charged for the time with the duties of consul general and diplomatic agent. Although he for the time being discharged diplomatic functions, yet as Consul his pension would come under the superannuation list as that of a consular officer. The arrangements as to South America were different from those as to other countries. In nearly all the States of South America they had not diplomatic agents, but consuls general, who had diplomatic powers. While the annual Votes for every branch of the public service had increased, in many instances, to the extent of one-third, during the last few years, the diplomatic service alone remained station ary; and the Foreign Office, by the exercise of strict economy, was able to hand back annually to the Treasury some £7,000 to £10,000; but if the diplomatic charges were annually submitted to the House, he would venture to say that the increase would be as great in them as in
  1940
  those for the other departments. Excellent reasons would be assigned by hon. Members for the increase of this and that diplomatic salary. The evidence before the Diplomatic Committee showed that the expense of living had increased nearly threefold in almost all the capitals in Europe, and he believed that with few exceptions every Minister and Ambassador abroad spent more than he received from this country. Members of the House would be constantly bringing forward special instances of grievance in this respect, and the House would, perhaps, not be disinclined to listen to them. Therefore, he was convinced, that if the House had annually an opportunity of discussing the amount of diplomatic salaries, the result would be a large increase of expenditure in that direction. Upon the question of efficiency he must say, that the last reason assigned by his hon. Friend for making the change he proposed was the very reason why he should be disposed to resist it. The hon. Gentleman said, that if these salaries were annually discussed in that House, the Ministers and Ambassadors of this country would become more dependent for their policy upon public opinion as expressed in the House, that they would look to this House instead of the Foreign Office. They had in the diplomatic service as able, as intelligent, and as independent a body of men as existed in any other branch of the public service of the country; but the proposed change would, he believed, be fatal to the efficiency of the diplomatic service. Formerly, when a change of Government took place, there was also a change of their representatives abroad; but that system had, to a great extent, disappeared, and consequently their diplomatic agents had become independent of any political parties, obeying simply the instructions of the Minister of the day. But if every year diplomatic salaries and missions were discussed in that House, and our representatives were made to depend for them upon their political opinions, they would look to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State; they would become politicians instead of servants of the public, and the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of State would be lessened. In the cases of Japan and China the House had been asked to vote sums for diplomatic salaries in addition to the £180,000 which had been agreed upon; but those cases

  1941
  were peculiar, a large diplomatic and consular staff having to be created in both of those countries. The experience gained by those Votes, and by the Votes for the consular establishments, did not encourage the proposition to submit all diplomatic salaries to annual discussion; for instead of diminution in amount, appeals were being constantly made in that House for additional consuls to be appointed. While the consular Votes had increased year by year, the Foreign Office was limited to the expenditure of £180,000, and it was compelled to restrict its expenditure to that amount. There were some charges connected with the diplomatic service, such as for messengers and couriers, which were included in the Civil Service Estimates; but the £180,000 had only been intended to meet the pay and pensions of the diplomatic agents, and not to include such items as those referred to. He believed that the Resolution, if carried, would only result in an increase of expenditure, without in any way improving the efficiency of the service, and in very much damaging the efficiency of this branch of the public service. On these grounds, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, or that the House would refuse to adopt it.
  MR. GRANT-DUFFsaid, he thought that nothing would be gained to the cause of diplomatic reform if the proposal were carried; for he believed that if the expenditure on that service was annually discussed by the House, it would be increased every five years. The amount for diplomatic services was not large, and, upon the whole, was well administered. He was not well satisfied with the expenditure in Paris, but was bound to admit that a majority of the Committee which sat two years ago did not agree with him. He believed that such Motions as that under consideration did harm, by withdrawing the attention of Parliament from what really required amendment. An increase of efficiency, and not a decrease of expense, was really needed in the diplomatic service. That service was at present in a fair condition, having been improved by the last regulations of the Foreign Office; but still further improvement was required, and that House could best contribute to that end by constantly pressing upon the Government to uphold the standard of diplomatic merit, and to make the service one d'élite which no one should be allowed to enter who had not shown that he possessed superior abilities.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was struck by the extraordinary statement of the hon. Under Secretary of State as well as by the extraordinary theory he had propounded. The hon. Gentleman said that the diplomatic expenditure had not increased for thirty years; but it was proved that, instead of £180,000, the expenditure upon that service was £360,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman also said, that if diplomatic and consular salaries were annually submitted to that House, the consequence would be a great increase of expenditure. But, if that theory was good for anything, it went to the extent that there was no use in submitting any Estimates at all to Parliament. As to the increased expense of living abroad, that point had been considered by the Committee, who, however, instead of recommending increase of salaries, advised that no salary should exceed,65,000 per annum. He believed that they had, particularly in Germany, more diplomatic establishments than were necessary. He remarked that whenever they withdrew (heir diplomatic agents from any place things went on very smoothly, and it would appear that they only tended very much to increase mischief. It might be said that they gained information at the small Courts in Germany; but so far from that information being useful they would be better without it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that it was much to be regretted that such an important Motion had not been met by a responsible Minister of the Crown. It was trespassing too much upon the indulgence of the House to leave the subject to be dealt with by an Under Secretary of State. The hon. Under Secretary stated, that if diplomatic salaries were voted by that House, the persons who received them would become party men, who would agitate for the increase of salary instead of attending solely to the service of the country. Now, was that a proper reason to give to the House of Commons for refusing it the control over the diplomatic expenditure? All the permanent civil service was paid by Votes of the House, and in every Department of the State there were important officers whose salaries were paid in that way; but were they made party men in consequence? Another reason given by the hon. Under Secretary was, that if the salaries were submitted to the House of Commons, they would be raised by the importunity of Members, and that the public expenditure would thus be increased. Now, it appeared

  1943
  to him that that was a libel upon the character of the House. Would any Minister of the Crown venture to assign such reasons as these for opposing the Motion? At present the charge upon the Consolidated Fund was often supplemented by Votes of Supply; but it was impossible for the House to form any just judgment respecting this expenditure without having the whole of it before them. At all events, he submitted that in connection with each item in the Votes upon that subject there should be distinctly stated the amount which was charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he must say that all his prejudices and prepossessions were in favour of such a Motion as that before the House, because it tended apparently, ostensibly, and even really, to extend the jurisdiction of the House with regard to the details of public expenditure. Nine years ago it was his lot to propose to the House the adoption of a measure which removed from the Consolidated Fund a very large number of charges, and placed them on the annual Votes. At that period it was the duty of the Government to consider each case by itself, and to determine whether each charge should be submitted annually to Parliament, or placed on the Consolidated Fund. After taking a comprehensive view of the whole question, at that time it was the opinion of the Government that the diplomatic charges, properly so called, ought to be retained upon the Consolidated Fund; and when he subsequently submitted a measure upon the subject, he was not aware that an opposite opinion was expressed in the House. It was to be borne in mind that the question was then considered not casually, upon a particular point raised at a particular moment, but after full notice, after public attention had been drawn to the subject, and a comprehensive view had been taken of it, with the assistance of the collateral light thrown upon it by the consideration of kindred matters. He did not say that that fact was decisive of the question, which must of course be settled, one way or the other, wholly by a regard to the public advantage. The existing system was not, he admitted, perfectly and absolutely consistent. The general intention of the Act, which charged £180,000 a year upon the Consolidated Fund for the payment of diplomatic salaries and pensions, was that all the higher classes of officers
  1944
  should be provided for from that source. That, however, was not so; and, on the other hand, some of the lower class of officers, as to whom he thought it unnecessary that they should be placed there, were so provided for. It was conceivable, that upon consideration of the subject some partial improvement might be effected in distributing these charges, but that was not the question with which the House was dealing. His hon. Friend laid it down broadly that "all sums required to defray the expenses of the diplomatic service ought to be annually voted by Parliament." Now, to that Motion there was, in his view, in the first place an objection of principle, and in the second place an objection of practice. It had been the just opinion of the Legislature that the highest diplomatic officers held a position which it was so important to maintain in the highest degree of independence that it should really be treated in a manner analogous to that of the Judges, and that their salaries should be placed beyond the reach of the smallest uncertainty. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary had, at the same time, expressed an opinion, which was entitled to much more weight than his own, that the change proposed would be injurious to the discipline of the Service. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, it was his particular duty to regard the question from a point of view connected with his own Department, and he was bound to say, that speaking simply in the interest of the Treasury, and setting aside all constitutional reasons, he deliberately preferred the arrangement as it stood to the arrangement as proposed. They had had a good deal of experience upon the subject, and there had been some difficulty as between the Treasury and the Foreign Office in arriving at one conclusion upon many of these points; but in all the cases where the Foreign Office had made requisitions upon the Treasury for an increased public charge, these demands had invariably been supported by reference to movements in that House, to demands made there, and to the Reports of Committees of that House. The Foreign Office itself had greatly reduced these demands, and upon further consideration between the two Departments a further reduction had been effected, so that in a simple practical point of view he gave his entire adhesion to the main proposition laid down by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary. He did not deny the jurisdiction of the House of Com-

  1945
  mons in these matters, if they thought fit to exercise it; but he hoped that, on the ' grounds he had stated, they would not accede to the Motion. As to the statement that there had been a great, increase in the diplomatic charges, that must be an error, for he thought that there had been no increase at all corresponding with the increase in the charges for government generally. But an increase had taken place in the consular charges, which were subject to the Votes of the House, and must depend, to a great extent, upon the demands of the growing commerce of the country in various parts of the world. The difficulty in keeping down these charges did not arise from the extravagant wishes of the Foreign Office, but from the necessity of making head against the authority of a Report presented by a Committee of that House. He could not give his adhesion to the proposition laid down by his hon. Friend, and he trusted that the House would not accede to his Motion.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that from what he had seen as a Member of the Diplomatic Committee he had upon practical grounds arrived at the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not think that any reduction of expenditure would follow if these Estimates were submitted annually to the House He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in the analogy which he had drawn between the position occupied by the Judges and the higher diplomatic servants. The calculation on which the sum charged to the Consolidated Fund for the diplomatic service was grounded, was made many years back by the noble Lord the present Prime Minister and adopted by the House. Augmentations for contingencies had since been made, but these were annually submitted to Parliament. On the ground of economy he should recommend the rejection of the proposition submitted to the House.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Motion of the hon. Member for Sussex would not be adopted He had, however, understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to argue that Ambassadors were placed on the same footing as the Judges of the land. Nothing could be more false in fact or theory. It amounted to this, that the members of the diplomatic body were fixed servants of the Crown. The Government of Sir Robert Peel, and many other Governments, he believed, had on taking office changed those
  1946
  who occupied the higher positions in the diplomatic service, and much of the evidence taken by the Committee on the Diplomatic Service went to prove, that so far from it being desirable that Ambassadors and Consuls should remain fixed servants of the Crown, it was, on the contrary, extremely desirable that consular servants should be selected from those who had displayed efficiency in public life at home, because they commanded more respect than those who had passed their time in the diplomatic service. The hon. Member for Southwark had expressed apprehension, that if a Vote on this subject were brought annually before the House, the foreign policy of the country would be more under the control of that assembly. That constituted no good ground of objection, for it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that it was very desirable that foreign ministers should become better acquainted with, and learn to appreciate more, the public opinion of the country as it found expression in Parliament. He opposed the Motion solely on the ground of economy—believing that the charge for the diplomatic service would increase year by year if the course recommended by the hon. Member was adopted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had attributed words to him of which he had not made use. He likened the position of the higher members of the diplomatic body to that occupied by the Judges, not on the ground of their tenure of office, but on the ground of their independence.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would gladly support the Motion if he believed that economy would be secured by its adoption; but looking at the large increase that had taken place in the charges for the consular service, which, before they came under the control of the House, amounted to £96,000, but now exceeded £160,000, he did not think that such would be the case. That increase had been incurred at the desire of the merchants.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that he should support the Motion. Whether the hon. Member for Sussex went to a division or not, he had done good service by his Motion. He had shown the necessity of a revision of the system under which the charges for the diplomatic service were regulated, and the sooner the Government took up the matter the better. It had been shown that the £180,000 charged

  1947
  to the Consolidated Fund was insufficient to cover the charges placed upon it. In addition to the increased expense occasioned by the embassy to China and to Japan, there was this year a new Vole for the payment of an attaché, and he feared that from year to year there would be an increase of such Votes. He did not offer any opinion as to whether a portion of the charge for the diplomatic service ought not to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, but he thought it desirable that the House should have the control of the great body of the expenditure.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 65: Majority 71.

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE COLONELS— COLONEL DUDLEY CARLETON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to call attention to the case of a number of officers of the army whose claims had been reported upon favourably by a Committee of the War Office, and had also been admitted to be deserving of consideration by the authorities of that Department. He had mentioned the name of Colonel Dudley Carleton in his notice, but there were several other officers in a similar position. These officers were promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished service in the field previous to the Warrant of October 6th, 1854, which was, no doubt, a salutary and necessary measure, but had occasioned much individual hardship. To such an amount of discontent did it give rise, that a Commission was appointed in 1858 to inquire into its operation. The principal recommendations of the Commission were embodied in the warrant of 1858, which remedied many of the grievances. A number of cases, including those of Colonel Dudley Carleton and some others, were, however, left undecided by the Commission, but were recommended to the favourable consideration of the War Office. There was some question whether these officers came within the scope of the memorandum which was published with the brevet of the 20th of June, 1854, and which declared that officers promoted under that brevet would receive their promotions subject to new regulations about to be promulgated by Royal warrant. The officers held that they were
  1948
  beyond the terms of that memorandum, as it applied simply to those officers who obtained promotion under the brevet and not to such as were subsequently promoted in, regimental succession. The Committee of general officers who inquired into the matter in 1861 took an opposite view. The officers in question, however, rested their claims on another ground, and that was the favourable recommendation of the Commission of 1858, which was endorsed by the Committee of 1861. The Secretary of State for War also agreed in that recommendation, for Major General Lugard, on behalf of the War Office, on the 8th of November last, urged the Horse Guards to give effect to that paragraph in the Report. The recommendation of the WarOffice would, it might be thought, carry with it a certainty of being attended to; but it was not acted upon, because the Commander-in-Chief stated in a communication dated the 7th of February, 1863, that having considered the question, he was of opinion that the objections to the proposal were so great that he did not feel justified in agreeing to it. His Royal Highness did not give any reason, and it was a rather curious circumstance that in the beginning he was of a directly contrary opinion. At present, then, the matter stood thus:—It had always been acknowledged that Colonel Carleton and the other officers were injuriously affected by the Warrant of 1854, and a Committee, which differed upon other officers, had reported unanimously in favour of theirs. The Secretary of State for War had intimated his acquiescence in that Report, and, in fact, the only objectors were the authorities at the Horse Guards, who seemed to think they had a controlling voice in all matters connected with military affairs. But what he could not understand was, as he had already stated, that the authorities at the Horse Guards were originally favourable to the claim of Colonel Carleton and the other officers, and that it was the Secretary for War who opposed their promotion. The parties had changed sides, and now the Horse Guards were the only objectors. That, he submitted, was rather hard upon the gallant officers. Colonel Carleton served during the whole of the Crimean war without receiving any promotion whatever. In his regiment no less than sixteen out of thirty officers were killed, and it was to that he owed his high regimental position. He had received a colonelcy, but a large num-

  1949
  ber of lieutenant colonels had stepped over has head in consequence of the Warrant of 1854, and he still felt himself under grievous disadvantages. It was on that account that he had wished his case to be brought under the notice of the House, and unless he received some satisfactory statement from the Secretary of State on that occasion, he should, in all probability, think it his duty to move for the appointment of a Select Committee after Easter.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the class of officers to whom the lion. Gentleman had called attention was limited, consisting only of three; and one of them had obtained his promotion, and was now full colonel. The only effect of the change sought by his hon. Friend was, that he could hold a different position among the class of full colonels. His place in the Army List would not be the same as at present. There were two classes of officers who were affected by the Warrant of 1854. There was one class known as the colonels of distinguished service, who were tolerably numerous, whose case was the subject of the correspondence recently laid upon the table, and upon which notice of Motion had been given by the gallant Gentleman opposite (General Lindsay). Now, the case of these distinguished service colonels stood upon wholly different grounds from that of the three officers whose case had been brought before them. That case related to promotion in the Guards. It would he impossible to deny that the Warrant of 1854 injuriously affected certain individual officers in the Guards. Their case, however, was considered by a Commission in 1858, the Members being the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Grey, Lord Panmure, Lord Rokeby, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Edward Ellice, Sir James Scarlett, Sir Fenwick Williams, Sir Frederic Smith, Sir Henry Storks, and General Eyre. A more competent Commission could not have been appointed, and, after careful inquiry, they did not recommend any alteration in the mode of promotion in the Guards introduced by the Warrant of 1854. The system had consequently been continued up to the present time. When such a rule had been acted upon and acquiesced in for a considerable number of years, even assuming it was not perfectly just in its operation, inflicting hardship on particular persons, it was extremely difficult for those intrusted with the administration of promotion by an ex
  1950
  post facto regulation to step in and alter it. The War Office, moved by the recommendation of the last Committee, brought the matter under the consideration of the Horse Guards; hut the Commander-in-Chief, who was the proper head of the discipline and promotion of the army, having made a careful inquiry, and having heard the statements of the various officers who would be injuriously affected if the proposed alteration took place, came to the conclusion, that whatever evil there might be in the present state of things, it was less than that which the suggested remedy would entail. Nothing could be more certain than that when such variations were made one set of complainants was substituted for another, and the only effect of granting the application of Colonel Carleton and his brother officers would be to raise up a more numerous class of petitioners. Under these circumstances, while admitting that the Warrant of 1854 injuriously affected certain officers, he was not prepared to say, looking at what had taken place, and considering the extent of time over which the rule had been acted upon, that the decision of the Commander-in-Chief was not strictly just.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he thought the case of these officers one of peculiar hardship. They were a body who were hit by the Warrant of 1854 more severely than any other class. It occurred in this way. That warrant was by a retrospective clause made applicable to the 20th of June, 1854. At that date these officers were senior captains at the head of their respective regiments, and in a fortnight or three weeks afterwards they were promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonels. If they had been majors, they would have had first to become lieutenant colonels before the warrant could affect them; but being the senior captains of their respective regiments they were affected at once; and no fewer than 200 lieutenant colonels had gone over their heads in the last nine or ten years. The question brought before the Commission which had been referred to was the general claim made by the senior officers of the Guards, on the part of the captains and lieutenant colonels, that they might not be so hardly dealt with as they had been by the Warrant of 1854. The Commissioners expressed the opinion that the case was one to be carefully watched by the Commander-in-Chief; and if the general claim was found to be

  1951
  such as had been represented to them by Lord Rokeby, it should be rectified with the consent of his Royal Highness and the Secretary for State by giving them special promotion. But the case of the particular class of officers now under discussion was not specially brought before the Commissioners. That special case was, that they had been promoted between the 20th of June and the 6th of October, 1854. Their claim could not perhaps be legally enforced as long as the warrant was held to have a retrospective operation; but if ever there was a case which should have been leniently and considerately dealt with, it was the present. The Secretary of State had himself thought so, and had pointed out to the Commander-in-Chief that all the lieutenant colonels of the line promoted between those two dates had already been removed, either by retirement or promotion, these few officers alone being now left. While the Commissioners of 1854 recommended that all lieutenant colonels of the line should be promoted on three years' effective service, they also recommended that the existing captains and lieutenant colonels of the Guards should be promoted on completing six years' service, or just double the period for the line. He thought that term of six years might fairly have been extended to the officers promoted between the 20th of June and the 6th of October 1854, without the least injustice to any other class of officers. Their case was one eminently deserving of generous treatment, and he trusted that before the hon. Gentleman opposite had an opportunity of bringing it forward again, it would receive favourable consideration at the hands of the Secretary of State.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it was impossible for any one to read the particulars without admitting that the case was one of as great hardship as could possibly be inflicted; and he really could not understand how it was that the Secretary of State for War could have altered his opinion in so short a time, because they had his letter in favour of the officers only four months ago. The Commissioners reported one way, and the Commander-in-Chief differed from them. An umpire was therefore wanted between them, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be that umpire. They often heard of the privileges of the Guards being greater than those of the Line; but the papers relating to the case showed that the fact of Colonel Carleton
  1952
  belonging to the Guards had operated seriously to his prejudice. For an officer of distinguished service, who was looking forward to the higher rank of general, to have two hundred of his juniors placed over him was no light matter, and it would seem as if in this instance there was something more than met the eye. As one of the public, he thought injustice had been done to these three or four deserving officers, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would represent the circumstances again to the Horse Guards, so as to obviate the necessity for a special Committee of Inquiry.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought it very unwise to raise the questions about the privileges of the Guards. No doubt there were anomalies; but if officers in the Guards had other officers promoted over their heads, they should recollect that they had themselves enjoyed a great advantage over the Line.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he was sorry to differ from his hon. and gallant Friend, with whom he generally acted on military questions; but he did not think that the question had anything to do with the privileges of the Guards. He objected, as a general rule, to matters of discipline being brought under the consideration of the House. The case which had been submitted to the House was one of peculiar hardship, which might be easily rectified without injury to the service, or to the discipline of the army; and he thought that if the Commander-in-Chief were supported by the Secretary for War, and by the opinion of the House, justice would be done, and he trusted the matter would be taken into serious consideration.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £1,953,000, on account of certain Civil Services.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he objected to being called upon unexpectedly to vote so large a sum of money upon account before the whole of the Estimates were laid upon the table. He further objected to so doing when there were admitted to be considerable balances in hand. He wished for some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury upon that point. In one class alone he understood there was

1953
no less a balance than £620,000; why should they vote more money than was absolutely wanted for any one branch?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he regarded Votes on account as injurious to a proper supervision of expenditure; but as the balances of various Votes were paid into the Exchequer, his objection was not so Strong as it otherwise would have been.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Committee might really be congratulated on the Vote, because it was owing to the adoption of the principle recommended by the Committee on Public Accounts which had been presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring)—namely, that of making the Estimates include not the sums required for the service of the year, but the sums that would actually become payable within the year. Under the old system, the balance of a Vote once taken was transferred from year to year till the whole was expended. That practice had been abolished, and the balances which remained in hand on the 31st of March were handed back to the Exchequer. With regard to the present Vote, it was taken on account of the Civil Service Estimates as a whole, not as instalment of each particular Vote. There would thus be no obstacle in the future discussion of the Estimates.
MR. PEELsaid, the Vote on account was rendered necessary by the change that was made in the last Session in the manner of voting the Civil Service Estimates. The sums voted last year were for payments falling due in 1862–3; therefore any payment falling due after the 31st of March could not, with a due respect to the provisions of the Appropriation Act, be made out of the sums voted during the last year. As to this Vote on account being suddenly presented to the House, he would only observe that it had always been stated that the change of form in which these Estimates were now presented would necessarily require a Vote on account to be taken. He trusted the Committee would agree to the Vote, for otherwise the new plan would certainly fail.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to know when the year began and ended? Were the payments for salaries due on March 31 made in 1862–3 or in 1863–4?
MR. PEELsaid, that payments which became due at the end of the quarter would be paid on the following day, and would form part of the amount to
1954
be voted by the Committee for the coming year.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought it incomprehensible that the payments for the last quarter of one year should be made in the first quarter of the next year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a perfect system required, according to the idea of the hon. Gentleman, that all payments for the expiring year should be made while the clock was striking twelve on the night of the last day of the last quarter. Such a perfect system, however, was impossible, and the system pursued was to make all payments as speedily as possible after they became due. When payments became due upon the lapse of fixed periods, the payments could only be made when those terms had expired. In the case of the National Debt, the half-year did not terminate at the same time as the Government quarter. The difficulty, however, was more apparent than real, and was so incident to human affairs that he despaired of overcoming it.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as a Member of the Select Committee he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for adopting their recommendations with respect to the public accounts. They appeared to work very satisfactorily.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £574,154, Customs Department.
SIR HENRY W1LLOUGHBYremarked that there was a slight increase in the Vote. From the remission of Customs duties which had taken place of late, one would have expected some reduction in the charges; but such was not' the fact. In 1861–2 and in 1862–3 the Vote was identical with the present; but in the year 1861–2 the expenditure was £731,625 only, or £22,525 less than the Vote. For what was the £754,154 wanted, if £731,625 was sufficient that year? Probably, the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury could give some explanations on the point.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that a reduction of upwards of £82,000 in the Vote had been promised. Instead of that, he found there had been an increase.
MR. PEELsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would compare the amount of the Vote with that at which it stood some years ago, he would find that since the changes which had taken place in this

1955
Department a reduction in the Vote to a considerable extent had taken place. The principal reduction then made was in the number of examining officers; but the great increase of business which had since taken place had rendered a corresponding increase necessary in the Vote. It would also be observed that the salaries had a minimum and maximum, amount. It was probable, that when the large official changes took place some years ago, many of the officers entered at the minumum salaries which had since been increasing, and thus the Vote had become enlarged in amount. A Committee upstairs was, however, making inquiries into the Government establishments in all the ports of the country. Of course, any recommendation which that Committee might make would be duly attended to, but at that moment it had not reported.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £1,351,771, Inland Revenue Department.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that under this head also, as compared with the actual expenditure of 1861–2, the present Estimate showed an increase of £57,569.
MR. PEELsaid, there was a reduction, as compared with the Estimate of last year, amounting to £30,000. He could only account for the difference mentioned by the hon. Baronet by supposing that in 1861–2 there were some offices vacant or salaries not drawn.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, it was remarkable that these salaries always crept up and never crept down.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that they wanted to know not so much what past Estimates had been, as the actual expenditure in past years.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £2,098,920, Post Office Services, &c.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the vast increase in this Department might well alarm the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there was great danger of the whole Post Office revenue being swallowed up in charges. The revenue from that Department in round numbers amounted to £3,500,000, but the salaries and expenses exceeded £2,000,000. As compared with actual expenditure in 1861–2, the present Estimates showed an increase of £28,250, and there was a further sum of £75,000
1956
for contingencies. He wished to know whether the Estimate included all the salaries and expenses of the Post Office? He was inclined to think that there were other charges, without mixing up the Packet Service with the matter. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would give them some clear information on the point.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not understand why the sum asked for in the present year should be larger than the Vote of last year.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask what arrangement had been made for meeting the expense of the Post Office savings banks?
MR. PEELsaid, that that expense did not fall within the Estimates. The increase mentioned by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) was to be accounted for by the continual additions made to the provincial establishments. An increase had also been made in the pay of sorters and letter carriers in the circulating department. The total increase in the Estimate over that of last year amounted to £14,233.
MR. AYRTONinquired whether he was to understand that all the expense connected with the Post Office savings banks was paid out of the interest derived from the money of the depositors, and was not brought into the present Estimate. He was not aware that any authority was given by the Act to the Government to do that.
MR. PEELreplied in the affirmative.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he desired to have it explained how it happened that such an immense sum as £75,000 was asked for on account of contingencies; and he also wanted to know whether the Treasury Department exercised any clear and precise control over the Post Office.
MR. PEELsaid, that no addition was ever made to the establishment of the Post Office without the matter being brought under the notice of the Treasury. With regard to the sum required for contingencies, full information would be found in the Estimates.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the item of £37,000 for official postage.
MR. PEELreplied, that provision was made in the Civil Service Estimates for payment to the Post Office for the conveyance of official letters. In this Esti-

1957
mate provision was made for the conveyance of the correspondence of the Post Office itself. The receipts and expenses of the Post Office were thus shown.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(5.) £515,796, Superannuations and Compensation Allowances, &c.
(6.) £56,986, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to call attention to the amount of fees paid on the passing of private Bills. It was said that the various companies and other parties applying for private Acts paid more than was sufficient to meet the expenses of both Houses of Parliament. It seemed to him monstrous that Parliament should make a large profit through the exercise of its legislative privileges, by taxing the promoters of projects beneficial to the public. He thought it would be well if a debtor and creditor account were furnished of the income and expenditure of the Private Bill Office.
MR. PEELsaid, that these fees were paid into the Exchequer, and appeared in the financial accounts. At this moment there was a Committee of the House sitting to inquire into the whole subject.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he could not but complain of the great inconvenience which was occasioned by the taking of Votes on account, especially when the Committee was, as in that instance, asked to consider the Votes themselves on the very same evening. He also called attention to the rate at which these Estimates had increased of late years. In 1842 their amount was only £2,900,000; in 1852 £3,800,000. and that year it was £7,850,000. In 1842 the amount of Class 2, which included all the expenses of the Executive of the country, was £730,000; in 1852 it was but a little more than £1,000,000; that year it was £1,473,000.
MR. PEELreminded the hon. Gentleman that a great number of charges which were formerly paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or by fees, now appeared in these Estimates. That was a circumstance which ought not to be lost sight of in comparing the Estimates of different years.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—
(7.) £38,730, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
(8.) £19,263, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
(9.) £56,325, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
(10.) £23,047, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
(11.) £14,637, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
(12.) £47,181, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade, &c.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he desired to have some explanation of the amount expended upon what he might call the office of the clerk of the weather. A table of the weather was published in the papers every day, and it was accompanied by certain forecasts which, notwithstanding the wide range which they took, were scarcely ever fulfilled. Mr. Francis Moore used to take the safe side, giving through the greater part of the month the one statement, "wind and rain;" but since the President of the Board of Trade had assumed his privileges the intimations had been more detailed, and varied nearly every day. The effect of these predictions, with regard to sailors and fishermen, was often very injurious, either by keeping them at home when they might go to sea, or by inducing them to go to sea when they might be overtaken by storms. Only two days before the great storm of the 19th of October last Admiral Fitzroy prophesied that the weather on that day would be moderate, and it was only on the following day that, finding the weather was changing, he sent out a telegram that gales might be expected. In what he called the "Weather Book" he published the latter prediction, but not the former one. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself consulted his clerk of the weather before he started upon a voyage in his yacht. In truth, the whole thing was a burlesque, for no man could foretell the weather in so variable a climate as that of England.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Estimate had not yet been presented, and he therefore could not tell his hon. Friend what was its precise amount. The Vote for the Meteorological Department had, he might add, been proposed originally for the purpose of enabling this to co-operate with other countries in the collection of facts with reference to the prevalence of particular winds in parts of the ocean and the classification of those facts, in the

1959
hope that some rules might, by means of international communication on the subject, be established, and navigators thus guided on long voyages, and enabled, by ascertaining where certain winds might be found, to shorten their time at sea. The suggestion originated with the Royal Society. A system had since sprung up of deducing, from such facts as were obtained, forecasts of the weather, for the guidance of merchant seamen in determining whether they might or might not with safety leave port. Now, operations of that description had not been contemplated when the Vote had been originally proposed, and he had therefore called the attention of the Treasury to the growing increase in the Vote, and had suggested, that as the expenditure was diverted to other purposes than the collection and classification of facts, the proper departments should put themselves in communication with the Royal Society, and learn their opinion as to whether meteorological science had arrived at a state of such perfection as to admit of forecasts of the weather being made with tolerable accuracy. The matter was therefore still unsettled; but when the Government received the report of those scientific gentlemen whom they had asked to pronounce an opinion upon it, they would be in a better position to say whether it was expedient to continue to vote the public money for the purposes to which he was adverting. Under these circumstances, his hon. Friend would not, he hoped, object to the passing of the Vote in the present year.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade had placed itself in communication with the Royal Society on the subject, inasmuch as he had very grave doubts whether the public money would be usefully expended for the object in question or not. Admiral Fitzroy's drums, as they were called, which were to be seen at some of the ports, instead of guiding, tended, in his opinion, very often to mislead the masters of vessels. Not long ago he had observed, to a friend, seeing that one of these drums was not up, that the weather was sure to be fair, but that night came on one of the worst storms we had experienced this year. On the occasion of the Prince of Wales's wedding, too, having gone down to Swansea, where there were some demonstrations to do honour to the event, it so happened that he found one of those drums was up.
1960
Everybody, as a consequence, feared that a storm was at hand, but, instead, there were two or three days of very fine weather. Thus, on two occasions within his own knowledge, those signals were at fault.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that as the subject was under consideration he would not further oppose the Vote.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes: —
(13.) £1,994, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
(14.) £6,741, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
(15.) £14,640, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
(16.) £2,923, to complete the sum for the Department of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer.
(17.) £22,857, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings,
(18.) £19,839, to complete the sum for the Office of Woods Forests, and Laud Revenues.
(19.) £15,235, to complete the sum for the Office of Public Records, &c.
(20.) £157,424, to complete the sum for Poor Law Commissions.
(21.) £37,901, to complete the sum for the Mint.
(22.) £19,610, to complete the sum for the Inspectors of Factories, &c.
(23.) £4,316, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and other Offices in Scotland.
(24.) £2,445, to complete the sum for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
(25.) £11,580, to complete the sum for the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
(26.) £2.752, to complete the sum for the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, Ireland.
(27.) £16,314, to complete the sum for the Office of Public Works, Ireland.
(28.) £25,060, to complete the sum for the Commissioners of Audit.
(29.) £14,351, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
(30.) £10,090, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts; Imprest Expenses.
(31.) £35,511, to complete the sum for the General Register Offices.
(32.) £10.982, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
(33.) £2,910, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions.
(34.) £5,111, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commissions.
(35.) £1,223, General Superintendent of County Roads, South Wales.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that so rich a district as South Wales ought not to come upon the Consolidated Fund for so paltry an amount.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed that it was the only amount of public money which was granted to Wales.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to ask what funds had been used to pay money under the Vote since January, as there was no balance in the Exchequer.
MR. PEELsaid, that no payments had been required, and none would be made until April.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes: —
(36.) £2,374, Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(37.) £12,243, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
(38.) £4,495, to complete the sum for the office in London under the Local Government Act, &c.
(39.) £2,342, to complete the sum for collecting Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland).
(40.) £1,193, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Record Offices.
(41.) £1,098, to complete the sum for Quarantine Expenses.
(42.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there had been no time to investigate these Estimates, and he should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. PEELsaid, he had given notice that these Estimates would be taken tonight.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(43.) £244,139, to complete the sum for Printing and Stationery.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the increase in the amount of this Vote.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask who was responsible for that Vote, the increase in which was almost incredible. Within the last twenty-seven years the country had spent pretty nearly £8,000,000 in printing and stationery. In 1835 the cost of these items was only £125,000; in 1853 it had risen to £216,000; and the next year it doubled, nor had it ever fallen materially from that time. In 1861 it was £416,000, and in 1862, £342,000. Every year an immense amount of stuff was laid before the House of Commons, which nobody ever read, and the House of credited with extravagant expenditure in printing. A great deal of the printing set down to the House was not fairly chargeable against it. Every Department which wanted to have something printed without swelling its own bill, managed somehow to get it put down to the House of Commons. The House appointed a Committee every year, which was composed of some of the ablest Members, to assist the Speaker on questions of printing. But did that Committee ever meet?
MR. PEELsaid, that the Departments were under the control of the Controller of the Stationery Department, who acted under certain rules laid down by the Treasury. If he received any application from any Department which was inconsistent with these rules, he made a special application for instructions to the Treasury. The Vote was, in fact, not so large as it seemed to be, for £40,000 was paid into the Exchequer on account of the sale of printed papers, and £19,000, voted for the printing in the Patent Office, was repaid by the fees.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had moved for a Return some time ago, which showed that the expenditure caused by the printing of papers for the House of Commons was comparatively very small. He hoped that hon. Members would not be deterred from moving for Returns by the plea of expense. Frequently most important and useful information could be obtained from the Government in no other way than by moving for a Return.
COLONEL SYKESasked, whether the printing for the Public Departments was done by contract?
MR. PEELsaid, that the printing pro-

1963
vided for by the Vote was of three kinds— printing for the Government, printing for Her Majesty (that is, printing Acts of Parliament and Proclamations), and printing for the House. The payment of the charges for such printing was arranged in different ways.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(44.) £90,025, to complete the sum for Postage of Letters on the Public Service.
(45.) £9,662, to complete the sum for the Treasury Chest.
(46.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Expedition to the Niger under the charge of Dr. Baikie."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that he hoped the Government would not proceed further with the Estimates that night as the Committee had not sufficient information before them to enable them to discuss the Votes which they were asked to pass,
MR. DODSONsaid, that eighteen Votes had been passed over in consequence of the absence of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, and the result was, that a branch of the Estimates was now taken up unexpectedly, which hon. Members, who were absent, did not anticipate would be proceeded with that night.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the Estimates had been gone through in their proper order, the items under consideration would not have come on at that early hour, in the absence of hon. Members who, perhaps, desired to take a part in their consideration, and he should therefore move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had frequently heard objections to proceeding with Votes at a late hour, but to object to go on because it was too early—for that seemed to be the objection here—was a rather novel course. The Government were quite ready to discuss any points that might be raised by hon. Members.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the noble Lord was not dealing fairly with them, because it had not been anticipated that a number of Votes would be passed over, and others taken that could not have been reached had the Votes been taken in
1964
order. He had also to complain, that in consequence of the Votes given on account when they went into Committee, the sums put from the Chair were not the sums printed in the Estimates.
MR. DODSONsaid, he submitted that before they voted the sum for the diplomatic service, they ought to know what was the expenditure of the last year. He hoped they would postpone the Vote for that service until after Easter, and that the House in the mean time would be furnished with Returns showing them the cost of the diplomatic service for last year.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the objection to proceed had not reference to the hour of the evening. The question was, were Members then prepared to go into those Votes? They were not prepared to go into them. He hoped the noble Lord would not press them to do so after such an expression of dissent from the Members of the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that full notice was given, and it was no argument to say that it could not have been expected that the earlier Votes could be disposed of so quickly and others come to. There were Votes that would be unopposed that might be taken.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would give them a pledge that the Votes for the diplomatic and consular service would not be taken that evening.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it seemed that the object of the Government was to shuffle the Votes through without inquiry, because, of twenty-eight Votes, nineteen had been postponed to a future day. Such postponements involved confusion. He wanted the Government to give notice of the numbers of the Votes that would be taken, but they would not do that.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the Government would not go on with the Votes for the Diplomatic Service, on which hon. Members required further information, that evening; but there were a number of other Votes which might be considered.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to:—
(47.) £66,000, to complete the sum for Bounties on Slaves and Tonnaged Bounties, &c.
(48.) £6,950, to complete the sum for Mixed Commissions.
(49.) £116,462, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wanted to know whether the Superannuation Account was not increasing.
MR. PEELsaid, that as far as that year was concerned, there was a decrease in the total amount, although there had been some new superannuations on account of the abolition of the Bermuda convict establishment.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked whether there was not an increase in the dockyard establishment
MR. PEELsaid, he was not aware of any increase during the last two or three years.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to call attention to an omission which had occurred through some inadvertence to the Superannuation Act, in consequence of which great hardship resulted in officials who suffered personal injury while engaged in the public service. The old Act contained a provision whereby the Treasury were enabled, under special circumstances, to grant a suitable allowance to persons who were disabled, as one of the officials in the Portsmouth dockyard had been a short time since from the murderous attack of a convict. Under the present Act, however, if the official had not been in the service for a period of ten years, there was no power to make a provision for him. That was a matter which he thought required the consideration of the Government, and he trusted that the Treasury would find a way to rectify the defect.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to inquire what had been done in the case of the Bermuda convict officials.
MR. PEELsaid, that those officials received the usual retiring allowances, with the addition of compensation for the abolition of their situations. Those who were eligible for re-employment forfeited their allowances if they declined to accept it.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had often wondered whether the forfeiture of allowances on declining re-employment was ever enforced.
MR. PEELsaid, it was somewhat difficult to exercise the power of re-employing Superannuated officials. Lately, however, a number of Custom-house Officers, who had been superannuated, were again taken into employment.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to: —
(50.) £744, for Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, &c.
(51.) £325, for Refuge for the Destitute.
(52.) £1,966, to complete the sum for Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards.
MR. COXasked whether the Polish refugees had gone back to assist in the insurrection. Poland was now the proper place for them.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(53.) £55,700, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.
(54.) £10,400, to complete the sum for Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
(55.) £2,625, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Allowances formerly on Civil List, &c.
(56.) £1,451, to complete the sum for Public Infirmaries (Ireland).
(57.) £1,600, to complete the sum for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital.
(58.) £700, Rotunda Lying in Hospital.
(59.) £200, Coombe Lying-in Hospital.
(60.) £4,600, to complete the sum for the House of Industry, Dublin.
(61.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the Cork Street Fever Hospital.
(62.) £600, Meath Hospital.
(63.) £100, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital.
(64.) £1,300, Dr. Steevens' Hospital.
(65.) £245, Board of Superintendence of Dublin Hospitals.
(66.) £5,847, to complete the sum for the Concordatum Fund.
(67.) £25,278, Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the charge was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He would take the sense of the Committee on proceeding with it in the absence of many hon. Members who took an interest in the subject.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £25,278, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Non-conforming Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 26: Majority 27.
MR. HENLEYsaid, before the Chairman reported progress, he would beg leave to say that he thought that the mode in which the Votes had been taken that night was very inconvenient, and he trusted that it would not be drawn into a precedent. The notice on the paper of the Votes to be taken was, to say the least of it, very equivocal. It might be read different ways. It might have been supposed either that a Vote was to be taken on account for the several numbers mentioned, or even that the Votes were to be taken throughout upon each particular item, but no one would suppose that a Vote was to be taken on account early in the evening, and that the balance of the same Vote was to be taken at a later hour. Certainly if such a proceeding as that were intended, common candour required that full notice should be given, so that hon. Members might know what they were about. The Committee had actually agreed to balances in cases where the former Votes on account had not been reported, and where there was nothing to show to what they related. Such a hop-step-and-jump method of doing business precluded the possibility, he would not say of discussing the Votes in a proper manner, but even of understanding them. Many hon. Members were no doubt absent, thinking that the Votes would be taken in their regular order. But if that precedent were to be followed, they might as well all stay at home, for it was impossible that they could take part in the discussion for any useful purpose.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his well-timed observations, and to express a hope that they would have the desired effect. He had often known Votes passed in an improper manner, but he had never witnessed such a proceeding as that of that evening. Nearly a hundred different Votes had been agreed to, and yet he believed that not one hon. Member knew anything whatever about them, as they were put from the Chair. Such a mode of transacting business was not in conformity with the honour or duty of the House, and he joined with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that it would not be made a precedent.
MR. PEELexplained that the Votes on account taken that night were not taken on the usual grounds on which Voles on account were asked for; but in consequence of a change which had been introduced during the last year in the mode
1968
of voting the Civil Service Estimates. Last Session those Estimates were voted on a principle which rendered it necessary that the Government should have the authority of the House for making certain payments falling due after the 1st of April next. It was by mere accident that the residue of the Votes was taken on the same evening. He had intended, indeed, to ask for Votes on account on the previous day, but the debate on the Irish Salmon Fisheries Bill occupied the whole of the sitting; and when he asked the House to go into Committee of Supply, his Motion was objected to, on the ground that it was then too late to proceed with it. He was consequently obliged to give notice for that night, because it was the last night on which Votes on account could be taken, if the Government were to have funds to meet the payments falling due at the beginning of the following month. With respect to taking the balance of the Votes on the same night, he could not tell at the beginning of the evening what progress the Committee would make, and therefore, in order to make sure of the sums required immediately, it was necessary that he should commence by taking a sum on account in respect of all the Votes.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that he had not objected to the taking of Votes on account, as he quite understood the necessity for that course under the arrangements of the last year. But when that course was adopted, the House generally understood that another opportunity for discussing and eliciting explanations relative to the particular Vote would be afforded. He never before recollected a Vote on account and what was called the balance being both taken on the same evening. Indeed, he could not tell how the Chairman arrived at the balance when the Vote on account had not been reported. He believed that the first Vote ought to have been reported to the House before the second was proceeded with, and that the two should be treated as distinct Votes. Was the Report to be brought up on the following day in a double shape? That was a matter of no trifling importance. The process that had been adopted, if not irregular, was certainly novel, and he thought it so unusual that he felt it his duty to enter his protest against it.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had animadverted on that great irregularity which was creeping into their proceedings,

1969
and which, if continued, would put an end to the House's control over the Votes. He trusted that the same right hon. Gentleman would draw up a Resolution calculated to check so evil a practice. He supposed that the temptation to slip through the first and second halves of a Vote on the same evening was so great that the Government could not resist it.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there could be no doubt that the course pursued that night had been unusual, because he believed that was the first, or nearly the first occasion on which the plan of taking Votes on account for the Civil Service Expenditure had been acted upon. But he could not admit that there was anything in it either dangerous, unconstitutional, or which limited the responsibility of the Government. What was it that his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had done? Why, be had first asked for a Vote on account, say, to defray the salaries of the Treasury, and that Vote was agreed to. Then, later in the evening, he had asked for a further sum to make up the amount required for the expenses of the Treasury for the year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the House knew nothing of those Votes on account until they had been reported. But what the Committee had to be satisfied about was that the Government asked neither too much nor too little in the aggregate for the expenses of the Treasury for the year; and if it had assented to the two Votes, he could not see that the Committee had been wanting in its duty, or that the Government had been guilty of any breach of its responsibility to the House. He quite agreed that it was not desirable that this course should often be repeated. He admitted that it was unusual, and might even, perhaps, be inconvenient, but that it was liable to the very severe censure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or that in this instance it could lead to any dangerous consequences, he could not for a moment suppose. The two sums correctly made up the amount which the Government intended to ask for the services of the present year; and it was impossible for his right hon. Friend to know in the early part of the evening what progress the Committee might make with the Votes. What he bad to do, in the first instance, was to secure a Vote on account to meet the payments falling due in April. The approval awarded by his hon. Friends near him to the observations of the right hon.
1970
Member for Oxfordshire was therefore somewhat precipitate.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that he had never used the words "dangerous or unconstitutional." He had called the practice "novel," and believed it to be "irregular," and the right hon. Gentleman himself had just applied to it the further epithet of "inconvenient," which was quite correct. So far as he was concerned, he was content to leave the matter on that footing.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that when a Vote on account was moved that evening, he had felt satisfied that no division would be taken, and that an opportunity for discussion would be afforded when the balance was asked for on some future occasion. Believing that the usual practice would be adhered to, he bad left the House.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS BILL— [BILL 57.]

  COMMITTEE.
  (Progress 23rd March.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 13, 14, and 15 were agreed to.
  Clause 16 (For Works under or over Land Consent of Owner, &c., requisite).
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the clause provided that no company should place its works over or across any lands belonging to the Crown without the previous consent of the proprietor. He wished to propose a verbal Amendment, extending the same rule to lands belonging to private owners.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONexplained that the clause stated that generally the company should not place posts "on, over, or along" any land except with the consent of the owner, lessee, or occupier. It was only in the saving part of the clause that the power arose of crossing property other than Crown property without the consent of the owner; but it had reference only to wires carried over houses, and not within six feet of them, in which case the consent of the street authorities was to be held sufficient. The proposed alteration would operate as a serious impediment to the extension of town telegraphy.
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, he wished to inquire how a man who lived in a two-story house, which he wished to raise to four stories, or who wished to build a mill on the spot, was to get rid of the wire.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in the next clause there was a proviso which guarded the rights of the owner of the house in such a case.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, there was no nuisance in having a wire passed six feet over a house. If the consent of every householder were to be obtained, the sixpenny telegraph system could never have been carried out in London.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was well acquainted with his own Bill. The proviso to which he had referred was contained in the 26th clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask when the street authorities gave permission to have a telegraph erected, what was to prevent the wire being brought across a man's window?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied that the meaning of the clause was that no wire was to be taken in and no post was to be erected within ten yards of the front of a house without the consent of the owner or the occupier. But a wire might be carried six feet above the elevation of the level of the roof without the written consent of the owner or occupier. If, however, the wording was obscure, it should be made clear.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he did not see why the same rule which applied to houses built upon Crown property should not also be applied to houses not so built.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask whether, if a house of two stories were to be raised to six stories, the wire was to go through it or be raised.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the wire would be raised.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 (For Telegraphs above Ground, and Posts, within certain Distance of Dwelling Houses, Consent of Occupier, &c., requisite).
  MR. HENLEYinquired whether the rule which forbade that a wire should come within ten yards in front of a house of the value of £20, or within six feet of the roof, would apply to houses along turnpike roads.
  MR. MILNER. GIBSONsaid, it would apply to all dwelling-houses.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should move to strike out the words "of the annual value
  1972
  of £20 and upwards." He did not see why the humbler occupiers should not have the same protection against the wire and posts being placed in front of their houses without their consent as people living in dwellings of £20 and upwards.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, a limit must be placed somewhere, and he thought £20 a fair one.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the objection taken by the right hon. Member was primâ facie a sound one. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to allow the matter to stand over, he would see whether they could not provide in some way the protection he desired.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the poor man ought not to have his doorway stopped up, any more than the rich man, by having a post put up to it.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLdenied that there was any practical nuisance in the case of the poor man.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to ask if there was no practical nuisance, why they exempted £20 houses?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Powers of Board of Trade respecting the Objection).
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would suggest the omission of the words "providing that compensation should be settled by the Board of Trade."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there would be no means of giving compensation at all if these words were omitted.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsuggested that the omission of the words would force telegraph companies into courts of law, and the less they were found there the better.
  Words retained.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 24.
  Clause 25 (Costs).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether the terms of the clause were large enough to enable the Board of Trade to settle costs in cases of arbitration.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would put in words to carry out that object.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (For Building or other Purposes, Owner, &c., may require Removal of Works though not originally objected to, but subject to Reference to Board of Trade).
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to call attention to the injustice which the adoption of the clause would work. He would put the case of a person having a piece of land on which he wished to build a house, or a house on which he wanted to place an additional story. He might be prevented from doing either of those things because a telegraph company had carried their wires six feet above his house or his land. The remedy proposed by the Bill was, that he should state his grievance to the Board of Trade, who would pronounce what in their opinion was a just decision. But that was contrary to all law. The noble Lord complained that telegraph companies would be driven into a court of law on every occasion, and so they ought to be. The common law said they should not place a wire across a man's house without his consent. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum was the maxim of the common law, but it was to be no longer observed. The Board of Trade were to have power to say a man should not build his house higher: but if it did give leave, the landowner was to pay the expense of applying for permission. That was preposterous. A man should be left to the exercise of his common law rights.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he also protested against the clause as interfering with the common law of the land. It was quite true that private Bills introduced into Parliament sought to do so also, but in the case of these compensation was provided. As the clause stood a man could not ride across his own land. It ought to be framed in such a manner as to leave him a right of action in case he suffered any injury from the wire running over the land.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who had preceded him appeared to have misapprehended the effects of the clause. A previous clause required that the company should do as little damage as possible, and should make compensation for any damage inflicted. If the wires ran over a man's house so as to interfere with his raising his house, of course the owner would be entitled to compensation. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act would also apply, and therefore this was a clause in relief of the landowner. It was only in cases where an Act of Parliament had been obtained authorizing the erection of the telegraph wires that the landowners would be put to the expense of applying to the Board of Trade.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must admit that the clauses which had been agreed to gave telegraph companies power to go over a man's house, at a height of six feet, without compensation; but if he wanted to raise the house, why should he be obliged to go to the Board of Trade for permission? That was an abomination. No one had a right to place an impediment in the way of a man getting nearer to heaven, which was what they all wanted to do in some way or another.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that no doubt the powers given by the Act were similar to the powers conferred by private Bills, but there was a difference between public and private Bills. In the case of a private Bill all parties had notice, and could make their complaints before a Select Committee, and then, as a last resort, they could fall back on the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He thought these were dangerous powers to confer.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was at a loss to understand what amendment was required. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) seemed to think it was an advantage to compel a man to go to a court of law rather than to the Board of Trade. The clause was eminently protective of the rights of the owners of property, and it vindicated those rights in the cheapest and most summary manner. He therefore trusted that the Committee would pass the clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that in order to bring the matter to an issue he would move to omit all the words after the word "notice," in line 42, page 10, to the word "expedient," in line 19, page 11. The Bill gave the companies power to take their wires over any man's house and across any man's land. [''No, no!"j He maintained that it did. If the company got the consent of the public authority, having control over the street, they could carry their wires without leave and without compensation. If a man wished to build a house on the land over which the company's wires ran, he did not see why he was to wait for the consent of the Board of Trade to enable him to do so.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he wished to know the effect of the proposed Amendment.
  MR. HRNLEYsaid, that the effect would be, that where a company had an easement over a house or land, on the owner giving them notice that he wanted

  1975
  to deal with his property, they must either remove or alter their wires, so as to give him an opportunity of making the alterations he required.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that a man might capriciously and wilfully give the company notice, and it would be most unreasonable that the company should not be heard.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he must agree that there ought to be some court to which both parties could appeal.
  MR. ROLTsaid, that the Bill dealt with the rights of property in a manner entirely novel ["No!"] Yes, it took away the rights of property without compensation, and that had never occurred before. The sixth clause of the Bill provided for compensation if damage were done to private property; but if the company, by the authority of the public body having charge of the road or street, carried their telegraph wires in the air six feet above the house or land, not doing any damage, then there was to be no compensation to the owner. The house over which the wires were carried might be a low one, and the owner might wish to raise it, but he must first sue to the Board of Trade for power to do so. Now, this was going too far. He thought it was a dangerous thing to allow interference with the rights of property at all without the consent of the owner, and without compensation; but if for objects of public utility such an interference were permitted, it should at least be guarded in every possible way, and the owner who contemplated an improvement in his property should not be forced to go to the Board of Trade in order to enjoy his rights. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen was therefore quite necessary. The wires ought to be removed at a short notice on a simple assertion of the owner that he required to build.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it might be quite right that the telegraph company should be forced to remove the wires, in order that the owner of the house or land might carry out any improvement; but having laid those wires lawfully and under the authority of Parliament, they ought, when required to remove them, to have the opportunity of stating any objections which might be raised against that removal. All the modern improvements— railways, canals, telegraphs—interfered with private rights, and he would not consent to leave the companies at the mercy of private caprice.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there could be no doubt as to the correctness of the construction which had been put upon the clause by his hon. and learned Friend. In the case of railways and canals the owners of property were paid for the land that was taken from them; but the telegraph wires were to be laid without compensation to the owner, and perhaps against his will; and then, when he wished to execute improvements which interfered with the wires, he was not to be allowed to do so, but the Board of Trade was to decide whether or not he was at liberty to use his own property. Still, the Amendment went a little too far, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) would reconsider the clause.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to point out that telegraph companies would have more power without the clause than with it, for the Bill interfered with such companies and not with owners of property. It was rather for the telegraph companies than for the householders lo claim compensation. He should, however, be happy to consider any Amendment that the clause was capable of.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the Amendment which he had proposed would be sufficient to meet the object which he had in view. If a man desired to raise his house ten feet, it was clearly the duty of the telegraph companies, after receiving notice to that effect, to raise their wires ten feet to enable him to do so. There could be no doubt, that in the course of the last year or two, several Bills had slipped through Parliament conferring powers which ought never to have been granted. The clause, moreover, would not apply to any case where the landowner had given permission or received compensation.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not understand what the Board of Trade would have to decide, or on what principles they would decide. Suppose he wished to build his house four stories high; it might be a caprice, but he had a right to indulge that caprice. The question was, whether a man was permitted to build his house as the common law permitted him. Then, what had the Board of Trade to decide? Every man should be left to his common law right to do as he pleased with his property. In the case of a man living in Northumberland, was he to come up to town to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade, or to employ agents for that purpose?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would again express his readiness, if the Amendment was withdrawn, to postpone the clause, with the object, in the mean time, of endeavouring to render its wording more generally acceptable.
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, that the analogy between telegraph and railway companies was imperfect. Railway companies could not act without notice. The power conferred by the Bill, on the other hand, was a more arbitrary infringement of private rights. He was advised by high legal Uthorities, that if the Bill became law, no man across whose land telegraph wires passed would be able, in future, to sell that property, without previously obtaining the consent of the Board of Trade. In many cases, where the offer was made conditionally upon immediate possession being given, the restriction would seriously damage the value of the land, if it did not prevent the owner from parting with it altogether. He hoped it would be made imperative on telegraph companies to remove their wires when required to do so.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he believed one of the objects of the Bill was to protect certain existing companies which had received powers to erect their posts and wires surreptitiously. He himself was a sufferer from the existing system; and he therefore trusted that it would be made clear that the clause applied to them.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Rolt) had entirely misrepresented the Bill. The sixteenth clause provided that no company should place any works upon any land or building without the consent of the owner, occupier, or lessee, and therefore it was not correct to say that the measure authorized the taking of land or property without compensation. The only property with which it interfered was property in the air, in cases where the wires passed over houses in towns.
  MR. ROLTsaid, that was exactly what he objected to. That was the first time that Parliament had been asked to interfere with any right of property without providing for the compensation of the owner.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that such powers were contained in existing Acts. The measure before the Committee was really one to restrict telegraph companies from doing that which they could do with im-
  1978
  punity if the Bill were never in existence. All that this clause did was to give the company a right of appeal to the arbitration of a. third party in case of any disputes arising between the company and the owners of property.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman wished to give the Board of Trade power to restain companies, but that was a duty which Parliament itself ought to discharge.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that in his reference to retrospective legislation, the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite candid. The last paragraph of the 18th clause provided that any landowner who wanted to re obtain possession of any laud over which wires had been carried, should give full compensation to the company. He hoped that that clause would be withdrawn.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he would move after Clause 6 to insert a clause requiring a telegraph company to pay an annual rent for the use of streets or roads, at such a rate as might be fixed by the Board of Trade.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONopposed the clause. He did not see why these companies should be placed in a more disadvantageous position than gas or water companies.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 14: —
  "Whenever in Ireland any street or public road shall be under the control of any grand jury of' a count;, then and in that ease the county surveyor shall, for the purposes of this Act, at all times when such grand jury shall not be assembled, exercise all the powers, rights, and duties in this Act declared to belong to the body having the control of such street or public road."
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he objected to the powers of the grand jury being delegated to the county surveyor, as proposed by the clause.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsuggested that the notice might be given to the county surveyor or to the secretary of the grand juries, provided it was inoperative until the grand juries themselves met and decided whether they would object or consent to the proposed works.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would promise to confer with persons acquainted

  1979
  with Ireland and Irish law, and to take the notice into consideration.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to move an additional clause, having for its object the removal of posts which had been already placed by any existing company on any part of a public road in positions which were, in the judgment of the body having the control of such road, dangerous to the public.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he did not object to the principle of the clause, but he did not think the form of it would do. He would prepare a clause with the same object, and bring it up on the Report.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. LYGONproposed a clause, providing that any proprietor whose property had been injuriously affected by the works of a telegraph company might apply to the Board of Trade, which Board, on being satisfied that the complaint was well founded, might require the company to repair the injury.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the clause only proposed to do what was meant to be done by the 26th clause; and he thought it ought to be considered in connection with the Amendment in that clause.
  MR. BLACKBURNobserved that the 26th clause only applied to cases in which the work was carried on over the land of a proprietor. The clause of the hon. Member applied to those in which it was carried over roads in front of a man's property.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he also saw a distinction between the two clauses. He wished, however, to ask whether the Committee were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade acceded to the proposition now before them.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he saw no objection to the clause; but was unable to perceive any difference between the two clauses, except that the 26th clause was rather more stringent than that now proposed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the Bill and the Amendments ought to be reprinted before the Committee proceeded further, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could not see what appeared to him to be a plain distinction. The 26th clause only applied to cases in which property was directly interfered with. The clause now
  1980
  under consideration would reach cases in which it was injuriously affected.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should accept the clause, as he did not object to its principle.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsuggested that further time should be given to hon. Members to consider the clause before they were asked to decide on its adoption or rejection.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn for the present, and promised that he would give the subject his attention before the Report.
  Clause withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

OFFICE OF SECRETARY AT WAR ABOLITION BILL.

  [BILL 72.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to abolish in name an office which had been in reality abolished during the period of the Crimean War. Before that time the duties of the War Department had been divided between the Secretary for War, who was also Secretary for the Colonies—the Secretary at War, who was always a Member of the House of Commons—the Board of Ordnance, and the Commissariat, the business of which was always transacted at the Treasury. Owing to the pressure produced on these Departments by the Crimean war, it was thought expedient to separate the office of Secretary of State for War from that of Secretary for the Colonies, and in the distinct office thus created was concentrated the whole business belonging to the War Department. The Board of Ordnance was abolished, the Commissariat was transferred to the War Office; but the office of Secretary at War, which had certain functions imposed on it by Act of Parliament, was still kept up and held by the Secretary for War under a separate commission. There were no separate duties to be discharged by the office, and no separate salary attached to it, and the object of the Bill was to abolish an office which for some time had had no duties to discharge.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the office which it was proposed to abolish sprang from the Royal prerogative; and depended on it alone. The Bill was therefore an infringement of that prerogative. In the Act of 1858, with reference to a fifth Secretary of State for India, the preamble distinctly set forth that the provisions were to take effect only if Her Majesty should be pleased to appoint another Secretary He held that a similar acknowledgment of the right of the Crown ought to be inserted in the present Bill. Last Session, the right hon. Gentleman set at naught the Royal prerogative in his measure on the subject of officers' commissions; and the Amendment which he suggested on that occasion, although not accepted by the House, was adopted in another place.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday 13th April.

OATHS RELIEF IN CRIMINAL PRO CEEDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 74.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the object of the Bill was to extend to Scotland the English law in regard to relief from oaths in criminal proceedings. He moved that it be read a second time.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, there was no objection to assimilating the law of the two countries in this respect.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday 13th April.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 69.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that although the Local Government Act was originally intended only for populous towns, a great many very small places had availed themselves of it. It had been adopted, for instance, in twenty-two districts which had less than 100 inhabitants, and in 130 with between 100 and 500. Indeed, places with only seventeen, eighteen, twenty-three, twenty-five, and thirty-seven inhabitants respectively had passed resolutions for adopting it. The reason of that excessive fondness for the Act was, that those places where it was in force were exempted from the operation of the Highway Act. It was therefore adopted in many cases simply to evade the latter
  1982
  statute, and without any intention of carrying out the provisions of the Local Government Act. The object of the present Bill was to put a check on such proceedings. It provided that no places with less than 3,000 inhabitants should have absolute power to adopt the Act without control. Such places were required to make application to the Home Office for permission to avail themselves of the Act, stating the special grounds upon which they required it. The Secretary of State would be at liberty either to accede to the application, or, after an inquiry, on the spot to refuse it. The period of appeal was also extended from twenty-one days to six weeks. Places which had accepted the Act were empowered to abandon it voluntarily if they desired to do so. Another important clause provided, that if after adopting the Act any place of a population under 3,000 did not take steps within two months to appoint a local board, or, after that had been done, to elect the officers mentioned in the Act, then the adoption of the measure in that place should be void. The Bill had been framed in accordance with suggestions and requests from all parts of the country, and he hoped the House would agree to it. He moved that it be read a a second time.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday, 13th April.

SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 1.]

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Lord Fermoy,)—instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  CAPTAIN ESMONDEmoved that the debate be adjourned.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it was clear that an attempt was being made to defeat the Bill by talking. He hoped the opponents of the Bill would consent to go into Committee pro formâ, and so relieve Mr.

  1983
  Speaker from the disagreeable necessity of hearing the same arguments repeated ad nauseam.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he was also in favour of going into Committee.
  COLONEL WHITEsaid, he should oppose the Bill. He wished the matter to be settled, but he should oppose any Bill on the subject which was brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought it was hardly becoming or decent for a Lord of the Treasury to make such a remark. The hon. and gallant Colonel was not even an Irish Member; he represented an English constituency, which had a great interest in buying Irish fish cheap, and he should be one of the last to oppose the progress of the Bill. It was evidently the object of some hon. Gentlemen to talk the Bill out of the House, but he would insist on a division, not with a view of making any progress in Committee, but in order that the Irish people might know who were for the Bill and who were against it. Should the House go into Committee that night, he would have no objection to postpone the further consideration of the Bill till after Easter.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he trusted that after the protracted discussion which had already taken place the House would go into Committee, so that after the recess the Bill might be fairly considered, with the various Amendments of which notice had been given. Too much had been said about private interests. He had no desire to interfere with the just and legal rights of individual proprietors; but Salmon Fisheries Bills having been passed for England and Scotland, there was no reason why the House should not legislate for Ireland also. The duty of the House was to watch over the public interests, and to pass such Bills as might be deemed fair or necessary.
  LORD FERMOYsuggested, that the debate should be adjourned, in order that the Irish Government might have an opportunity of considering whether they could not take the matter up and effect a compromise, as the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland was the only likely authority to achieve that object; certainly the hon. and learned Member for Wexford was not the best person to do it.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were
  1984
  to legislate on the subject, be could only do so by proposing Amendments in Committee. An adjournment of the debate would only lead to another discussion of six hours' duration, and a further repetition of the same arguments which had been already twice put forward.
  SIR GEORGE GREYremarked, that the Government had no power to take the Bill out of the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was ready to propose clauses in Committee, but he could do nothing more. He hoped the House would go into Committee, on the understanding that no progress should be made till after Easter.
  LORD NAASsaid, he approved the principle of the Bill, but was prepared to accept a compromise. A policy of obstruction never succeeded, in the end, in that House. All who took an interest in the subject felt that some legislation was necessary. Unless some means were taken to check the enormous over-capture of salmon in the Irish rivers, a permanent destruction of the fish must ensue. He hoped that that stage of the Bill would now be allowed to be taken.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 50: Majority 45.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL WHITEsaid, he wished to make another Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was incompetent for the hon. and gallant Member to do so.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday 27th April.

STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill relative to stock certificates to bearer. At that late hour he would not enter into a lengthened explanation of the principles of the Bill, but

  1985
  would simply state that its object was to give additional facilities for holding and dealing in the public stocks, particularly with a view to a certain class of persons, who were in the habit of holding public stocks for the purpose of borrowing, and also on account of those who might desire to deal in or hold them, without having the advantage of a residence in London, the centre of all such transactions. The Bill would, he believed, be attended with great public convenience. One point might be referred to on the present occasion—namely, that he proposed to disable
  1986
  trustees from holding funds or public stocks in that particular form, and to confine them to the method of registry now in use. He should reserve to himself the right of making further statements and explanations on the second reading.
  Leave given.
  Bill to give further facilities to the Holders of the Public Stocks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 76.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.